Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

As I generally don't buy into conspiracies, and since I think if they did actively frame (didn't Grinder have an issue with this discussion??..) they would have planted more material in more places, then yeah, I can believe it was incompetence. But it truly is difficult to imagine all those buffoons milling about and not one suggests they collect the clasp. Yeah, we have the bra so who needs the clasp. Yeah, the crime took place inside the room so who needs forensics from the backside of the door or door frame. Oops, the clasp has rusted and can't be tested. Oops, fried three hard drives. I mean DAMN, these people made the Keystone Kops look downright competent!

Additionally, it's not as if they missed the bra clasp as they numbered and photographed it on Nov. 2. If it was important enough for that, why was it not important enough to collect at the same time?

Another piece of evidence of their sheer incompetence is their failure to even have someone attempt to scale the wall and enter through the window. I could see them making a logical assumption that it was not possible if the window had been a fourth, or even a third story, entrance, but a simple second story window...and with a grate giving a step up directly below it?

The failure to collect samples from the outside bedroom door handle is mind boggling. When one takes into account that the door had been pulled shut from the outside by the killer, it's obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that he would likely leave fingerprints or DNA on it.

I think you're being too generous comparing them to the Keystone Kops.

The Adam Scott case is also of interest in that there had been a contaminated negative control that had been observed in the lab at about that time. IIRC this was not disclosed immediately. Regrettably, this is not the only time in which the finding of DNA in a negative control was not disclosed (Leiterman and Avery come to mind). This is why open discovery is so important.

Happily, even Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Knox told the 500+ people at the Westside Bar Association that slut-shaming played a role in her wrongful conviction.

Perhaps a healthy portion of those people later on fired up their iPads and laptops to scour the 'net for what is what with that claim. They run across TJMK as well as some of the more bizarre stuff on .PMF these days.

And here? They run across a poster who first claims that she, herself, does not slut-shame, who then says in the very next breath:

I'll let you in on a secret. Most of those people could not care less if some random Seattleite is or isn't a "rampant nymphomaniac". Who on earth cares about that? All of those people have never heard Knox describe herself as a raving-anything, so right off the bat you're trying to shoehorn a concept into their experience of her that does not include what you're claiming.

What they are looking for is if there was, as the first prosecutor had said, a sexual angle to this crime. The crime, Vixen, the crime.

When Knox then claims that there had been no actual evidence to support her original conviction in front of these people, and further suggests that "slut shaming" was substituted for actual evidence......

..... and they then come over here and read you describing her as a "rampant nymphomaniac", it's not so much that that is slut-shaming per se against a person whom you've never met.....

.... here's the thing.....

.... you have not connected that to the crime! Are you saying that the Nencini court's conviction, now annulled, was wrong when it said the motive for murder was rent money and an argument between Meredith and Amanda? There's nothing slutty about an old fashioned argument about money! (Even if the sole source of that story was Rudy Guede, the real murderer!)

I would suspect that those people fresh from hearing Knox claim slut-shaming as a reason for a wrongful conviction, would come over here and say, "I see what she means!"

Either that or posters here are looking for any excuse to use the word "nymphomaniac" in a sentence for their own internal reasons, the reasons of which are no one's business either.

That's the deal, Vixen. It's about the way slut-shaming was used as a substitute for actual evidence! You never get that.

Look, most people in writing their memoirs do not spend half the book detailing their sexploits, yet Knox does. Porn is as old as time and its script is always the same. It is extremely boring. Yet still we have people popping up claiming to have invented sex. Perhaps Knox has a belief that her parents didn't also get up to the same old shenaningans as herself.

Fact is, the murder of Meredith Kercher is a sex crime, and this is where her sexual malarky crosses the line into unacceptable conduct.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Others have already pointed out what is wrong with your post, but may I ask exactly how you think Knox portrayed herself as a "rampant nymphomaniac who invented sex"? I'd ask you for some actual quotes or incidents where Knox does this, but I know better. I'd just like to know how you came up with this idea. The psychology fascinates me.

Let's see, half her memoir is about how she went to Italy looking for sex. Her words, no-one elses. Her fake claim that prison doctors forced her to list her partners. Her own Prison Diary proves her to be a liar. Her own alibi claiming she was having sex with Raff as of the time of the murder, when he claims he cannot remember one way or the other.

Her claims that she received about 50 letters from other (male) inmates which ordinary people would see as crude filth, she sees as confirmation that people think she's 'hot'. She tells reporters she even got a few dirty letters from 'men over 50' and these she did not like.

We are forever hearing her phoney claim that she was forced to tell prison officers the names of all her lovers <sfx YAWN>

Hello? Amanda: nobody cares. Everybody in the world is having sex. It is not all about you.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Both the real Frank Sfarzo, as well as the "Frank" character in the Winterbottom film (Edoardo) said that the issue was complete incompetence.

There was also judicial incompetence mixed in. Given that guilters behold the Follain book from 2011 as their bible, it is incredible to read, even in Follain's account, that Monica Napoleoni testified that there had been no access to the murder room without forensic counter measures..... well, all except for the medical team who'd been granted entrance to see the body while wearing none. That had been Nov 2.

Then we find out that this crack group of investigators said that the reason why they'd not forensically examined the outer-door-handle to Meredith's room to see who may have left fingerprints or DNA on or around it, was because they deemed, "that was not part of the crimescene." At some point that stuff rises to judicial incompetence when at least two courts convicted anyway....

Apparently Sfazo knew from the git-go that these investigators were not exactly rocket scientists....

We know Raff's fingerprint is on the inside of the door to Mez' room, when he claimed he couldn't open her door at all.

Go figure.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Look, most people in writing their memoirs do not spend half the book detailing their sexploits, yet Knox does. Porn is as old as time and its script is always the same. It is extremely boring. Yet still we have people popping up claiming to have invented sex. Perhaps Knox has a belief that her parents didn't also get up to the same old shenaningans as herself.

Fact is, the murder of Meredith Kercher is a sex crime, and this is where her sexual malarky crosses the line into unacceptable conduct.

You just cannot help yourself.

The crime was Rudy's. Even the first judge, Massei, concluded that. That you can read Knox's book and sluttify it says all anyone needs to hear. That you can drag the exoneree's family into this is disgusting, and a tactic not even the prosecution used. Why you think you need to go beyond what the prosecution tried says everything.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Look, most people in writing their memoirs do not spend half the book detailing their sexploits, yet Knox does. Porn is as old as time and its script is always the same. It is extremely boring. Yet still we have people popping up claiming to have invented sex. Perhaps Knox has a belief that her parents didn't also get up to the same old shenaningans as herself.

Fact is, the murder of Meredith Kercher is a sex crime, and this is where her sexual malarky crosses the line into unacceptable conduct.

"After her [Annie Le's] body was found in her lab's crawl space, DNA found on her skin and underwear matched that of a convicted offender in the area. He had left DNA behind when he carried out construction work in the lab, Murphy writes, but he might still have gone to prison for the crime—if he hadn't died two years earlier."

__________________“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

While some obsess about the sex-life of a random 20-year-old Seattleite, who is now an exoneree.....

Please note how in justifying that obsession they have to now argue against what even the first convicting court said. Yes, the court which first convicted AK and RS said this (in 2010) about the sexual nature of this horrible crime:

Originally Posted by Massei page 392

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox
and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be
encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.

In advancing their multi-year PR campaign against Knox, they have to ignore that the Italian courts themselves disbelieved the prosecution's hypothesis about this being a sex-game (gone wrong) which had involved either Knox or Sollecito - esp. as initiators.

The courts, even with all their demerits, never thought of this as anything other than Rudy's sex-crime. What the haters have these days is a constant return to the original prosecution, and they fail to concede that none of the courts fell for the sexualized aspect of the crime which involved either AK or RS as initiators.

The guilter-PR campaign these days has to forget Rudy Guede. It has to ignore what the courts said, as per above - even the courts which they lean on as finding as factual their guilt.

When the 2013 Supreme Court overturned the 2011 acquittals, it did it partly saying that the "sex-game gone wrong" theory had not been fully examined. Then the court which received this referral, the 2013-14 Nencini court itself ignored anything to do with sex-games, substituting the "rent money" motive.

Despite this the continued effort these days is to continually sexualize this around Amanda Knox, like the original prosecution tried - and failed to convince ANYONE, except the few remaining haters. None of them have moved much past the lurid tabloids of 2008.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Even though Mignini/Comodi won the 2009 trial, which resulted in the conviction of RS and AK, it is illustrative to read their appeal document in setting up their case for the (then) upcoming 2011 Appeals Trial in the Hellmann court.

Even though it is an awkward machine translation, it is clear that Mignini/Comodi were rocked by how much the Massei court had disbelieved about the case they'd made.

And remember, they'd won!

Read the appeal doc they prepared. It is clear that they found it troubling that Massei had found (as per above) that this had been Rudy's crime, which neither RS nor AK had urged him to commit. It is clear that Mignini/Comodi went into the Hellman trial knowing that major elements of their bizarre theories were disbelieved......

...... by even the first convicting court.

Yet almost a decade later, some continue an on-line PR campaign in defence of Mignini - even against what their own courts found.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Let's see, half her memoir is about how she went to Italy looking for sex.

A question for anyone -- I have not read Amanda's book. Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex? Or is it possible Amanda said something like that in one or two sentences and Vixen's perverted mind distorted reality such that it became "half her memoir"? Just curious. Vixen seems a little obsessed with this type of thing so I'm wondering if her statement is even remotely accurate.

Quote:

Her words, no-one elses. Her fake claim that prison doctors forced her to list her partners.

Uh, not a fake claim. This is well documented.

Quote:

Her own Prison Diary proves her to be a liar.

Your ability to distort reality and make up false claims to smear someone's reputation does not make it true. You calling someone else a liar is pure psychological projection.

Quote:

Her own alibi claiming she was having sex with Raff as of the time of the murder, when he claims he cannot remember one way or the other.

This is nonsense. Your brain cannot integrate information properly so you have made up an elaborate fantasy. Raf supports Amanda's alibi.

Quote:

Her claims that she received about 50 letters from other (male) inmates which ordinary people would see as crude filth, she sees as confirmation that people think she's 'hot'. She tells reporters she even got a few dirty letters from 'men over 50' and these she did not like.

Never heard this. Since this case is 8 years old and it's a new claim there is about a 99.9999999% chance you or some other filth on PMF made it up.

Quote:

We are forever hearing her phoney claim that she was forced to tell prison officers the names of all her lovers <sfx YAWN>

Yeah, this is true and well documented. They were trying to intimidate her by claiming she tested positive for HIV. Your side consists of a bunch of sociopathic bullies that think this is acceptable behavior. And if she speaks up to defend herself you paint her as a slut. Because something is wrong with you.

Quote:

Hello? Amanda: nobody cares. Everybody in the world is having sex. It is not all about you.

Then WHY do you keep making this filth up? And what does it have to do with Rudy murdering Meredith, as all of forensic science and the Italian Supreme Court have concluded? Is your only hobby obsessing over Amanda's sex life and posting about it on the internet? Do you have any idea how unbelievably sad that is?

A question for anyone -- I have not read Amanda's book. Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex? Or is it possible Amanda said something like that in one or two sentences and Vixen's perverted mind distorted reality such that it became "half her memoir"? Just curious. Vixen seems a little obsessed with this type of thing so I'm wondering if her statement is even remotely accurate.

It depends on your point of view.

1000s of young women from the States and Canada have taken time in their late teens and early twenties to explore Europe, settle here and there for a while and/or study for a year to learn a language and experience another culture.

So, if your point of view is that that phenomenon rates calling these women nymphomaniacs, and suggesting that such ventures result in sex-games gone wrong and murder and mayhem, then I guess you'll have the views Vixen represents.

The truth is that there's nothing that Knox writes in her book that is even remotely out of the ordinary - until Rudy Guede breaks in and murders her roommate - such murder because of his own sick urges, which even the first Massei trial said was the motive for the crime.

Massei said specifically that he, "cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox", meaning that Amanda had somehow invited Rudy to attack Meredith.

Let that sink in for a minute as to the effect that statement must have had on Mignini's lurid theories - or the lurid posts made in 2017 by anyone who believes that young women going to Europe to sow some oats is somehow abnormal.

I mean it. Think about it. Massei thought that Guede had initiated this crime all on his own. Even with all the "Lucerfina" stuff spouted at his trial about Knox, "clean on the outside but dirty on the inside" stuff, Massei didn't buy it.

Once again, read Mignini's appeal of the Massei decision! That's right. While it is not abnormal for the prosecution to submit an appeal document (why wouldn't they?), read the one he actually submitted!

Then - read Crini's prosecution summary at the end of the Nencini trial. All, and I mean nearly all, of Mignini's original sick-fantasies were gone. Crini had argued in 2013 that it did not matter how specious or speculative any one piece of evidence was; once you took them in aggregate they had to amount to something! 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=guilty.

But track what the various prosecutions had claimed about this crime - and compare with the overly sexualized stuff that Mignini and Vixen were (and are) on about.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Happily, even Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab.

Please supply this alleged testimony. I believe Stefanoni claimed there was no contamination.

There is ALWAYS risk of contamination in a lab. The facts are that, in order to properly and safely process LCN DNA, it must be done in a lab with special protections:

Quote:

International use of LCN

The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.

The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimise DNA contamination.

Why does Vixen do this? Does she think we cannot click on the links she herself provides? Why does she post pics of windows at the cottage saying, "Here's a pic with no bars on the window", when the pic itself shows that there are?

Why does Vixen say that Vecchiotti said, "Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab," when Vecchiotti said no such thing? Why does Vixen say that Dr. Gill said that secondary transfer not happen after 24 hours when he said no such thing? Why does Vixen claim that Prof Novelli confirmed Stefanoni's forensic work, when what Novelli's told the court was that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols on multiple amplifications?

These are not even subtle mistruths. Imagine someone wandering onto this thread with no knowledge of this case whatsoever - why does Vixen think that posting demonstrable lies will convince them of Vixen's own views?

As Welshman repeats - if the case against RS and AK had been such a slam dunk, why resort to lies? Why?

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

[quote=NotEvenWrong;11942579]A question for anyone -- I have not read Amanda's book. Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex? Or is it possible Amanda said something like that in one or two sentences and Vixen's perverted mind distorted reality such that it became "half her memoir"? Just curious. Vixen seems a little obsessed with this type of thing so I'm wondering if her statement is even remotely accurate
[quote]

I have her book and, no, what Vixen claims is not true. This is what Amanda wrote on pg. 21:

Amanda was experiencing what is completely normal. She was coming into and exploring her sexuality at the age most girls do. I wonder if Vixen considers Meredith a nymphomaniac as she was sexually active, too. She was no virgin and was having casual sex with the boy downstairs.
I agree with you; so many PGP seem unusually obsessed with Amanda's sex life and feel the need to make it somehow dirty and perverted. As has been pointed out before, the psychological aspects of this case would make a very interesting study.

1000s of young women from the States and Canada have taken time in their late teens and early twenties to explore Europe, settle here and there for a while and/or study for a year to learn a language and experience another culture.

So, if your point of view is that that phenomenon rates calling these women nymphomaniacs, and suggesting that such ventures result in sex-games gone wrong and murder and mayhem, then I guess you'll have the views Vixen represents.

The truth is that there's nothing that Knox writes in her book that is even remotely out of the ordinary - until Rudy Guede breaks in and murders her roommate - such murder because of his own sick urges, which even the first Massei trial said was the motive for the crime.

Massei said specifically that he, "cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox", meaning that Amanda had somehow invited Rudy to attack Meredith.

Let that sink in for a minute as to the effect that statement must have had on Mignini's lurid theories - or the lurid posts made in 2017 by anyone who believes that young women going to Europe to sow some oats is somehow abnormal.

I mean it. Think about it. Massei thought that Guede had initiated this crime all on his own. Even with all the "Lucerfina" stuff spouted at his trial about Knox, "clean on the outside but dirty on the inside" stuff, Massei didn't buy it.

Once again, read Mignini's appeal of the Massei decision! That's right. While it is not abnormal for the prosecution to submit an appeal document (why wouldn't they?), read the one he actually submitted!

Then - read Crini's prosecution summary at the end of the Nencini trial. All, and I mean nearly all, of Mignini's original sick-fantasies were gone. Crini had argued in 2013 that it did not matter how specious or speculative any one piece of evidence was; once you took them in aggregate they had to amount to something! 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=guilty.

But track what the various prosecutions had claimed about this crime - and compare with the overly sexualized stuff that Mignini and Vixen were (and are) on about.

Bill, the question was;

"Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex?"

and not whether Amanda is a nymphomaniac.

Sex is rarely mentioned in her book but given how she had been portrayed in the media it's not surprising she gives each of her three sexual encounters in Italy a brief mention. If I tallied up every mention of sex in the book my guess is it would be less than .01% of the book. Then again, Vixen's penchant for making things up is legendary so it's not at all surprising she made this claim.

Regarding whether she's a nymphomaniac or not, it's ironic that in the book she does recount spending an evening with a guy by the name of Mirko and how she felt uncomfortable about it afterwards. A few days later she agrees to go back to Mirko's place but winds up leaving when Mirko tries to have sex with her. She later tells Meredith about it and Meredith says to her "maybe uninvolved sex just isn't for you". Doesn't sound like a nymphomaniac to me.

Happily, even Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab.

This is an unbelievably foolish statement. Of course there was and is in every lab doing PCR a contamination risk. That is exactly why precautions have be taken and adhered to, to prevent contamination. That you can post this demonstrates you have no understanding of the issues.

This is particularly foolish in that the records available demonstrate a contamination event in that we have negative controls with detectable human DNA.

"Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex?"

and not whether Amanda is a nymphomaniac.

The trouble with trying to keep up with the sexualized posts of some people here is that the posts eventually become "normative" and they slip a few through.

Of course it is false that, "half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex". It is not only false but demonstrably false.

What more can anyone say? Vixen contunes to try to construct the sexualized "Foxy Knoxy", femme fatale, whore/madonna dichotmy that Mignini and the other lawyers tried to construct at the 2009 trial.

What is of note is that even Judge Massei rejected it, even as he convicted them. Galati (in his appeal document to Cassation in 2012) makes little mention of anything sexualized, and by the time it gets into the hands of Prosecutor Crini in Florence for the 2013 trial, that sexualized stuff is gone.

Note - it is gone even as Cassation in 2013 requested that the "sex-game gone wrong" theory be relooked into. Cassation in 2013 seemed to have thought that not only had the Hellmann court rejected Mignini's hypotheses too soon, but that the original Massei court had as well!! (Cassation in 2013 was trying to vindicate Mignini, not Massei. Judge Massei was/is always a problem for those wanting to sexualize this thing around Knox.)

Repeat, that the original Massei court had rejected Knox's involvement in Rudy's sexual advances as well - even in convicting the pair.

By the time Crini gets ahold of the case - the conflict which escalated into murder was pooh in the toilet. By the time Nencini reconvicted the pair, the dispute was over rent-money, and sex was nowhere to be seen; except for Nencini taking Rudy at his word that the sex he'd had with the victim was "consensual." That was the only sex in the Nencini scenario.

So why is Vixen, almost ten years later, even risking, "half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex...." when anybody who has read the thing would dismiss the comment as false immediately?

That you and me even engage this inanity/falsehood 2 1/2 years following the eventual exonerations probably says more about us than it does about Vixen!

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Let's see, half her memoir is about how she went to Italy looking for sex. Her words, no-one elses. Her fake claim that prison doctors forced her to list her partners. Her own Prison Diary proves her to be a liar. Her own alibi claiming she was having sex with Raff as of the time of the murder, when he claims he cannot remember one way or the other.

I don't think you've even read her memoir from the false statements you made about what's in it. She never said prison doctors forced her to list her partners. This is what she testified:

Quote:

They told me it was positive and they said I had Aids. I was left shocked. I didn’t know how that could be possible.

They told me to think about it hard and so I wrote in my diary about all the partners I had had.

She does not say, or even imply, that the doctors "forced" her to make a list. Why do you feel the need to just make things up?

The statement that he couldn't remember if they'd had sex that night was taken during his Nov 6 interrogation when he confused Halloween night with Nov. 1. Since then, Raffaele does remember having sex with her that night.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Her claims that she received about 50 letters from other (male) inmates which ordinary people would see as crude filth, she sees as confirmation that people think she's 'hot'. She tells reporters she even got a few dirty letters from 'men over 50' and these she did not like.

Why do you insist on twisting things to fit your own view?. This is what she actually wrote:

Quote:

I have received letters from fellow inmates and admirers telling me that I am hot and they want to have sex with me. I have also had insulting letters.

Quote:

Apparently someone out there saw me on TV and thought I was "hot" so they set up a website where people comment on how pretty I am.Weird. Flattered but that really isn't important right now.

Quote:

I received 23 fan letters today - that makes the count up to 35 letters. [They] are all from guys ranging from 20-35 on average, although I did receive a letter from a guy in his 50s.
All of them reassure me that they believe me - the majority comment on how beautiful I am. I've received blatant love letters, a marriage proposal and others wanting to get to know "the girl with the angel face".

Included in one was an article cut from a newspaper that talked about this new "Amanda" fad, about the letters I'm getting, as well as the websites that have popped up where people post comments like "she's hot" or "I'd do her".'

If I were ugly, would they be writing me wishing me encouragement? I don't think so. Jeez, I'm not even that good looking. People are acting like I'm the prettiest thing since Helen of Troy.'

She is writing about the letters she received. She does not see them as "confirmation" that she's "hot". Her last two lines reveal her disdain for the claims of her beauty.

Originally Posted by Vixen

We are forever hearing her phoney claim that she was forced to tell prison officers the names of all her lovers <sfx YAWN>

She never claimed she was "forced" as I proved with her testimony above.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Hello? Amanda: nobody cares. Everybody in the world is having sex. It is not all about you.

Apparently you care if we go by the amount of times you refer to her sex life. Why is that?

What your link says, "Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door." (my emphasis)

In all fairness to Vixen (did I really say that?...) if you look at the diagram, for some reason Fr. 72 is used both for two "unattributable" prints on the inside of the door as well as one of two prints attributed to Raffaele on the outside (the other being Fr. 68). Of course, the diagram is color coded and nowhere on the diagram does it say "Fr. 72 is Raffaele", so clearly Vixen wasn't paying close attention to details, but still there is something screwed up with the diagram.

In all fairness to Vixen (did I really say that?...) if you look at the diagram, for some reason Fr. 72 is used both for two "unattributable" prints on the inside of the door as well as one of two prints attributed to Raffaele on the outside (the other being Fr. 68). Of course, the diagram is color coded and nowhere on the diagram does it say "Fr. 72 is Raffaele", so clearly Vixen wasn't paying close attention to details, but still there is something screwed up with the diagram.

This is TMofMK; they have lots of things wrong.

I find it impossible to believe that Vixen would think that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the inside of the door when that would have placed him inside that bedroom. That would have been strong evidence against him yet such fingerprints are never mentioned in any of the trials. We know that. She knows that.

[quote=Stacyhs;11942745][quote=NotEvenWrong;11942579]A question for anyone -- I have not read Amanda's book. Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex? Or is it possible Amanda said something like that in one or two sentences and Vixen's perverted mind distorted reality such that it became "half her memoir"? Just curious. Vixen seems a little obsessed with this type of thing so I'm wondering if her statement is even remotely accurate

Quote:

I have her book and, no, what Vixen claims is not true. This is what Amanda wrote on pg. 21:

Amanda was experiencing what is completely normal. She was coming into and exploring her sexuality at the age most girls do. I wonder if Vixen considers Meredith a nymphomaniac as she was sexually active, too. She was no virgin and was having casual sex with the boy downstairs.
I agree with you; so many PGP seem unusually obsessed with Amanda's sex life and feel the need to make it somehow dirty and perverted. As has been pointed out before, the psychological aspects of this case would make a very interesting study.

Calm down. It is Knox herself who claims to be sex mad. Looking at the dandy, Raff, I expect it can't have been all that exciting.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

I find it impossible to believe that Vixen would think that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the inside of the door when that would have placed him inside that bedroom. That would have been strong evidence against him yet such fingerprints are never mentioned in any of the trials. We know that. She knows that.

I'm not sure who/what the original source for the diagrams are but the amandaknoxcase website has the same diagram, so can't blame the fake wiki for this one.

While some obsess about the sex-life of a random 20-year-old Seattleite, who is now an exoneree.....

Please note how in justifying that obsession they have to now argue against what even the first convicting court said. Yes, the court which first convicted AK and RS said this (in 2010) about the sexual nature of this horrible crime:
In advancing their multi-year PR campaign against Knox, they have to ignore that the Italian courts themselves disbelieved the prosecution's hypothesis about this being a sex-game (gone wrong) which had involved either Knox or Sollecito - esp. as initiators.

The courts, even with all their demerits, never thought of this as anything other than Rudy's sex-crime. What the haters have these days is a constant return to the original prosecution, and they fail to concede that none of the courts fell for the sexualized aspect of the crime which involved either AK or RS as initiators.

The guilter-PR campaign these days has to forget Rudy Guede. It has to ignore what the courts said, as per above - even the courts which they lean on as finding as factual their guilt.

When the 2013 Supreme Court overturned the 2011 acquittals, it did it partly saying that the "sex-game gone wrong" theory had not been fully examined. Then the court which received this referral, the 2013-14 Nencini court itself ignored anything to do with sex-games, substituting the "rent money" motive.

Despite this the continued effort these days is to continually sexualize this around Amanda Knox, like the original prosecution tried - and failed to convince ANYONE, except the few remaining haters. None of them have moved much past the lurid tabloids of 2008.

Is 'exoneree' your favourite new word?

As I keep saying nobody is the slightest bit interested in Knox' tawdry sex life.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

You have been referred several times to Vecchiotti's direct testimony in this matter.

Vecchiotti's was responding to a couched question from Mignini. If you read her full response she adds the caveat that the necessary data exists to confirm the theoretical scenario, and that this data was not provided (i.e., the dates when all tests were performed). Further, the scenario would only be addressing select lab equipment, but does nothing for all other sources of possible contamination, not least of which would be contamination from the collection, storage or handling of evidence, lab consumables, and lab equipment NOT used during those supposed six days where Meredith's DNA was not tested.

As has been pointed out to you on several occasions, DNA was detected in negative samples which is definitive evidence that contamination existed in Stefanoni's lab. Further, there is a full suite of internationally recognized procedures and protocols that should be followed to minimize (NOT eliminate, which is not possible) the risk of contamination and NONE of them were followed by Stefanoni. One of the key ones is that LCN profiling should never be done in the same lab that has handled large DNA samples from the case. At the time 36B was tested there had been over 50 samples of Meredith's DNA tested. Vecchiotti specifically points this out in her testimony.

It is interesting, however, to note that you eschew everything Conti and Vecchiotti had to say about the case except this one response to a mostly bogus question. That, by definition, is cherry picking.

A question for anyone -- I have not read Amanda's book. Is it true that half her memoir is about going to Italy looking for sex? Or is it possible Amanda said something like that in one or two sentences and Vixen's perverted mind distorted reality such that it became "half her memoir"? Just curious. Vixen seems a little obsessed with this type of thing so I'm wondering if her statement is even remotely accurate

Calm down. It is Knox herself who claims to be sex mad. Looking at the dandy, Raff, I expect it can't have been all that exciting.

If Knox said so herself, then please provide the quote of her doing so. I won't hold my breath.

Have you ever asked yourself just why you feel compelled to make these kinds of remarks? They are very revealing...and not about Amanda or Raffaele.

Why does Vixen do this? Does she think we cannot click on the links she herself provides? Why does she post pics of windows at the cottage saying, "Here's a pic with no bars on the window", when the pic itself shows that there are?

Why does Vixen say that Vecchiotti said, "Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab," when Vecchiotti said no such thing? Why does Vixen say that Dr. Gill said that secondary transfer not happen after 24 hours when he said no such thing? Why does Vixen claim that Prof Novelli confirmed Stefanoni's forensic work, when what Novelli's told the court was that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols on multiple amplifications?

These are not even subtle mistruths. Imagine someone wandering onto this thread with no knowledge of this case whatsoever - why does Vixen think that posting demonstrable lies will convince them of Vixen's own views?

As Welshman repeats - if the case against RS and AK had been such a slam dunk, why resort to lies? Why?

Incorrect: #68 is on the outside of the door; #72 are on the inner door.

You need to do something about that chronic knee jerk of yours.

Speaking of chronic knee jerks, perhaps you should take another look at it. Doors open inward, no outward.

Quote:

There are two unattributable prints on the desk (Fr. 63) and two on the door (Fr.72)
Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door.

As has been pointed out to you, there is a mistake regarding Fr. 72 as it's attributed to two different prints. The one inside the door is unattributed to anyone, much less Sollecito. The only ones attributed to Sollecito are outside the door.
Why can you not admit when you are wrong?

Incorrect: #68 is on the outside of the door; #72 are on the inner door.

You need to do something about that chronic knee jerk of yours.

You do realise this means an internal door? As opposed to the main door? The finger prints on the 'inner' door were on the corridor not the bedroom surface. They are colour coded and finger prints of an unknown person were found on the bedroom side of the door.

Of course you may ask how much effort did the police put into tracking down whose fingerprints were in the murder room? I mean it was a judicial fact that more than one person was involved in the murder, we have fingerprints of an unknown person in the room, we have DNA of an unknown male on the bra hook. But why bother going to the effort of identifying this person? When one can just fit up someone else.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.